会话含义和合作原则PPT

CONTENT

H.P.Grice

Paul Grice  (March 13， 1913 – August 28， 1988)， usually publishing under the name H. P. Grice， H. Paul Grice， or Paul Grice， was a British-educated philosopher of language， who spent the final two decades of his career in the United States. Grice's work on the nature of meaning has influenced the philosophical study of semantics. His theory of implicature is among the most important and influential contributions to contemporary pragmatics. “Meaning” （1957）

Cooperation Principle

合作原则提出的理据

“Logic and Conversation”（“逻辑与会话”），文中提出了著名的“合作原则”。该论文的宗旨不在于提出一个关于会话的理论，而是要解决如何分析自然语言的语义问题。罗素（Russell）要通过逻辑分析消除语言的日常用法对哲学和逻辑带来的消极影响，不合逻辑定义的则说明日常语言有缺陷。与罗素不同，Grice想通过对日常语言的分析发现其自身的特点然后再寻找它跟哲学的结合点。也就是说逻辑分析只能解决日常语言中的一部分语义问题，多出来的部分需要通过新的途径（如语用学）来解决。那么如何解决多出来的意义呢？

Grice提出了“言外之意”的理论。凡用逻辑语义理论解决不了的意义，则需要借助“言外之意”理论加以解决。言外之意有多种，其中突出的就是“会话含义”。会话含义是人们根据会话原则是否得到遵守而推导出来的一种意义，这是随语境变化而变化的语用意义。

Cooperation Principle

  哲学基础：

   Grice套用了康德的量、质、关系和方式四个哲学范畴体系：任何事物都有自身一定的量的规定性，质的规定性，有与其他事物的关系，有自身存在的方式。

Grice构建的意义理论是以他对语言和思维的关系 的理解为基础的。

Cooperation Principle

Paul Grice proposed that all speakers， regardless of their cultural background， adhere to a basic principle governing conversation which he termed The Cooperative Principle . Under this principle fall four categories of maxim.

Cooperation Principle

Contents of CP

Quantity 数量

1)Make your contribution as informative     

    as required. 

2)Do not make your contribution more

     informative than is required.

E.g.

 1.   A：你感冒了吗？眼睛红红的？

       B：我没感冒。昨晚没睡好，所以眼睛红了。

2.   A：你感冒了吗？眼睛红红的？

       B：哎呀别提了，昨晚陪朋友出去玩，说好十点前回家睡觉的，谁知后来大家玩开了，唱完K 又去吃宵夜，吃完宵夜又开了一桌牌，闹完都凌晨一点多了。回到家就更别提了，热水器坏了，修半天也修不好，只好用水壶烧水洗澡，等到上床睡觉天都快亮了。唉。。。困死我了。真想找个地睡一觉，要是不用上班也有钱花该多好。。。

Quality 质量

1)Do not say what you believe to be false.   

2)Do not say that for which you lack  adequate evidence.

E.g.

1. A：你干嘛又换手机啊? 什么时候买的啊?多少钱啊? 我也想买一部。

    B：唉，之前那部被人偷啦．这部前天才买的，花了我两千多呢!

2. A：你想应聘我们公司这份工作的话，必须达到我们的招聘要求。我们要求有5年以上工作经验的，你符合要求吗？

    B：当然啦！我在这行干了超过8年啦！( 其实根本没有工作经验)

    A：那么请问你之前八年在哪里高就呢？主要负责哪方面    的工作？

     B：。。。

Relation 相关

Be relevant. 话题要相关。

   说话要相关，贴切。

E.g.

1. A：我家来客人了，不够地方住，可以去你家住两晚吗?

    B：当然可以啊，我家客房正空着呢! 欢迎光临!

2. A: Let’s play tennis.

    B: I have a stomachache.

Manner 方式

Be perspicuous

1) avoid obscurity of expression.避免晦涩

2) avoid ambiguity.避免歧义

3) be brief.简单明了

4) be orderly.井井有条

E.g.

Let’s get the kids something.

   Okay， but I veto  I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M.

Grice把交谈看作是人类有目的性的、合理的社会行为之一，因此，上述的各条准则并非只在进行交谈时需要遵守，在从事其他的社会活动时也同样适用：

    以下是适用于其他社会活动的例子:

 

1. Quantity: If you are assisting me to mend a car. I expect your contribution to be neither more nor less than is required. If， for example， at a particular stage I need four screws， I expect you to hand me four， rather than two or six.

2. Quality: I expect your contributions to be genuine and not spurious. If I need sugar as an ingredient in the cake you are assisting me to make， I do not expect you to hand me salt: if I need a spoon， I do not expect a trick spoon made of rubber.

3. Relation: I expect a partner's contribution to be appropriate to the immediate needs at each stage of the transaction. If I am mixing ingredients for a cake， I do not expect to be handed a good book， or even an oven cloth (though this might be an appropriate contribution at a later stage).

4. Manner: I expect a partner to make it clear what contribution he is making and to execute his performance with reasonable dispatch.（Grice， 1975）

Violation of CP occurs， what follows?

Implicature

Levinson（1983:131）把Grice的含义归纳为以下几种：

Implicature

conventional implicature 规约含义

由所使用的单词、词语本身所具有的规约意义决定的。

e.g. 

       He is an Englishman， he is， therefore， brave.

conversational / non-conventional implicature 

   会话/非规约含义

    means the additional， unstated meaning， that is， what a speaker can imply， suggest， or mean more than what is said， as distinct from what the speaker literally says.

    和说话人所用的单词、词语之间的关系是间接的，它固然要以话语的语义内容为基础，但说话人所要表达的内容无疑要多余话语的语义内容。

Grice (1975) lists four possible situations where the cooperation principle can be violated:

1) The speaker may violate the cooperation principle delibrately but without making the hearer realize it. In this case， the speaker is most likely to mislead the hearer. For example， when someone is telling a lie， he violates the Quality Maxim by saying untrue things. But if the hearer dose not realize this and assumes that the speaker follows the cooperative principle， he will be misled.

2) The speaker may aviod cooperation in an explicit way by telling the hearer that he is unwilling to cooperate. If someone asks a question， the hearer can say that he doesn't want to answer， or he cannot say any more.

3) The speaker may face a dilemma. On the one hand， he wants to hold the quality maxim the present stage requires， while on the other hand， there is a possibility that other maxims will be violated if the quality maxim is held. There is a clash here.

4) The speaker may deliberately violate one of the maxims or fail to fulfill it. But this is different from the first case in that the speaker assumes that the hearer knows he intends to do something， and the hearer still regards him being cooperative in observing the general cooperative principle. The hearer knows that the speaker is not trying to mislead him.

Non-observance of conversational maxims

flouting a maxim 明显违反

violating a maxim 暗中违反

opting out a maxim放弃遵守 

infringing a maxim 无意违反

suspending a maxim 搁置

Flouting a maxim 明显违反准则

A speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim at the level of what is said， with the deliberate intention of generation an implicature.

e.g. 

   A: Is he nice?

   B: She seems to like him.

Violating a maxim 暗中违反准则

In his 1975 paper， Grice defined this category specifically as "the unostentatious non-observance of a maxim". If a speaker violates a maxim， he "will be liable to mislead".(1975: 49)

e.g. 

   Colleague A: Why is Ben absent?

   Colleague B: His wife is ill.

Opting out a maxim 放弃遵守准则

A speaker opts out of observing a maxim by indicating unwillingness to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. Instances of opting out occur frequently in public life， when the speaker cannot， perhaps for legal or ethical reasons， reply in the way normally expected. On the other hand， the speaker wishes to avoid generating a false imiplicature or appearing uncooperative. Or， giving the requested information might hurt a third party or put them in danger.

E.g.

Colleague A: lt's impossible. How can it be that Dr.Wallace rather than Dr. Mey is going to be promoted to the director's position? Who says that?

Colleague B: It is true. But I cannot tell you who says it.

Infringing a maxim 无意违反准则

ln the case of infringing a maxim， a speaker fails to observe a maxim， with no intention of generating any implicature， nor with any intention of deceiving.

The non-observance stems from imperfect linguistic performance rather than from any desire on the part of the speakers to generate a conversational implicature (Thomas， 1995: 74).

Imperfect linguistic performance: an imperfect command of the language， one's performance is impaired in some way nervousness， drunkenness， excitement， etc.)， some cognitive impairment， or the speaker is constitutionally incapable of speaking clearly， to the point， etc.

Suspending a maxim 搁置准则

       ...in our lives there are certain events in which participants are not expected to observe the maxims; and hence， there is no implicature arising from the non-observance of the maxims.

         It is well-know that in every culture there are taboos and euphemisms， and that euphemisms will always be used when taboo things or events are mentioned.

        ...may be culture-specific or specific to particular events.

Properties of Conversational Implicature

1. Defeasibility/cancellability（可取消性）

2. Non detachability （不可分离性）

3. Calculability （可推导性）

4. non-conventionality（非规约性）

Defeasibility/cancellability可取消性

 An implicature can be canceled by additional information without contradiction or anomaly.

This allows the speaker to imply something， and then deny that implicature.

E.g.

A: Do you want some tea?

B: Tea would keep me awake. 

(But  I do want to stay awake tonight.)

Without the part in the brackets， B would implicate that he does not want any tea. However， by adding the bracketed part， he succeeds in cancelling the implicature.

Non detachability 不可分离性

They can be non-detachable .

By this Grice means that the implicature is attached to the semantic content of what is said， not to linguistic form， and therefore implicatures cannot be detached from an utterance simply by changing the words of the utterance for synonyms.

会话含义是依附于话语的语义内容，而不是语言形式。因此，我们能用同义成分来替换话语的某一部分，而不改变原来的含义。

E.g.

John’s a genius.

John is a mental prodigy.(智力奇才)

John is an exceptionally clever human being.

John’s a big brain.

Calculability 可推导性

The listener can conclude the corresponding conversational implicature from the literal meaning of the words， the rules of the cooperative principle and the context.

听话人一方面根据话语的字面意思，另一方面根据合作原则的各项准则，推导出相应的语用含义。

E.g.

Daughter: Mum， you haven't given me my weekly pocket   money yet.

Mother: Let's see how you are doing with this

  Saturday's piano session.

Implicated permise: Whether or not you'II be given your weekly pocket money is based on  your performance during the piano session.

Implicated conclusion: If you do well in the piano session，you'II get the pocket money， otherwise， you won't get it.

Non-conventionality非规约性

Conventional meaning is context-free and stable， while  Cl will vary or even be lost as the context changes. lt's related to cancellability and non-detachability.

会话含义是通过合作原则中的各项准则，通过话语的字面意义并结合语境推导出来的。先有字面意义，才有语用含义。因此，含义不是字面意义，也不是字面意义的一部分。字面意义在话语中是不变的，而语用含义却可能各种各样，随着语境的变化，含义也可以变化或消失。

E.g.

Daughter: Mum， l'd like to buy the teddy bear over there.

Mother: How old are you， my dear?

Colleague A: Would you like to have dinner with me this evening?

Colleague B: My mother doesn't like me to dine out.

Colleague A: How old are you? 

Colleague B: l'm twenty-seven.

Question:

Why don't people observe the maxims just say what they mean so as to avoid all guesswork and misunderstanding?

Thank you!